Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
California Domestic Partners Rights Under Threat  
User currently offlinePA110 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2000 posts, RR: 23
Posted (9 years 1 month 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1099 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Randy Thomasson, that sanctimonious self-righteous christian biggot is at it again! Under the guise of a California constitutional amendment seeking to define marriage as one man and one woman, he actually proposes to strip California of all domestic partner protections.

Luckily, Bill Lockyear, CA State Attorney General is not so easily fooled. In a brilliant move, he has used his authority to issue a "summary statement" which would clearly spell out what is actually being proposed.

http://www.ktvu.com/news/4768578/detail.html

Until now, I have never understood what compels people to political violence. I now feel the frustration and anger at seeing my life under attack by narrow-minded religious zealots. You want to protect marriage? Don't get divorced. Stop making the gay community a scapegoat for the decline in so-called (straight) family values. Leave the gay community alone to live our lives in peace. Don't start denying us hospital visitation rights and partner health benefits because you think that this should be the sole domain of straight married couples. I caught the interview with Thomasson on this evening's news. I wanted to choke that sanctimonious bastard with my own two hands.


It's been swell, but the swelling has gone down.
24 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (9 years 1 month 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1092 times:

Quoting PA110 (Thread starter):
Until now, I have never understood what compels people to political violence.

...the lust for power, money, and/or recognition.

Not that difficult really.


User currently offlinePA110 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2000 posts, RR: 23
Reply 2, posted (9 years 1 month 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1083 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 1):
...the lust for power, money, and/or recognition.

Not that difficult really.

Actually I was referring to starting to comprehend the anger and frustration that compels some to political violence. I don't condone it, but I'm starting to at least understand it. While I'm not espousing violence at all, I wish the Gay Community would fight back with more than just rhetoric. I think its time we paid a visit to that jackass Thomasson and his goose stepping christian facists, and let them know we're not going to take this crap any more. Its time we started camping out on their doorsteps, picketing and protesting in their own backyards. Damn, where is ActUp when you need them?



It's been swell, but the swelling has gone down.
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14001 posts, RR: 62
Reply 3, posted (9 years 1 month 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1079 times:

I would say that this is just the first step. The next would be to prohibit heterosexual sex outside wedlock (e.g. through punishing landlords as "supporting prostitution" or for pimping if they permit unmarried couples having sex on their premisses, we had such a law in Germany up to the 1970s)

Jan


User currently offlineKykevin54 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 80 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (9 years 1 month 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1077 times:

Why is it that things have to be made black and white? Gays have just as much right to fight for their rights and their issues as the Christian community. Why is it that every time the "Christian Right" tries to push for what they honestly believe is right, they have to be labeled as biggots and facists? They want what they think is best just the same as the Gays want what they think is best. We can choose what side we're on, but we don't have to make the other side sound like demons. Everyone in the fight is using the same political means, just with a different end in mind.

User currently offlinePA110 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2000 posts, RR: 23
Reply 5, posted (9 years 1 month 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1073 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Kykevin54 (Reply 4):
We can choose what side we're on, but we don't have to make the other side sound like demons.

That is truly a naive statement, and belies a fundamental lack of comprehension of the basic issue. When the gay community fights for what it believes, it comes at absolutely no expense to the Christian community. We in no way diminish your capacity to live your lives, worship, marry or divorce as you see fit.

However, when the so-called "Christian Right" pushes for what they believe it comes directly at my personal expense! This initiative seeks to repeal my ability to visit my partner in the hospital, my ability to provide healthcare for my partner, the ability to adopt and raise a child, the ability for my partner and I to enjoy a life filled the same benefits and priveleges that married couples enjoy. These are all things that come at no expense to anyone, yet the Christian Right seeks to deny me these basic rights, solely in the name of pursuing their facist agenda.

We are fighting for the basic dignity of equal rights. The Christian Right is fighting to deny any and all rights. That, my friend, is the difference!

[Edited 2005-07-26 09:45:34]


It's been swell, but the swelling has gone down.
User currently offlineKykevin54 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 80 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (9 years 1 month 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1067 times:

Not everyone has a private jet and a Rolls-Royce, so what? Not every person in life will get exactly what they want or even what they deserve. The gay community sees it as morally wrong to deny rights to gay couples. That is absolutely fine. They are entitled to that belief. The Christian right sees it as morally wrong to give rights to gay couples. There's the conflict. Both sides believe that they are right and that they have the mandate to seek for what they think is best.

I will go ahead and state, since you seemed to jump to a conclusion that I was a Christian facist, that I am in favor of Gay Unions. I just hate to see people fight and call names like this. Somebody will win and somebody will lose. It's part of life. If the right wing wins on this issue, the gay community will lose, and vice versa. Everyday, people from all different walks of life deal with unjust things. If the right wingers win, there will be some unjust things that occur. However, justice, like right and wrong, are in the eye of the beholder. If the gay community wins, the right wing will feel that a great injustice has been handed to them.


User currently offlinePA110 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2000 posts, RR: 23
Reply 7, posted (9 years 1 month 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1063 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Kykevin54 (Reply 6):
The Christian right sees it as morally wrong to give rights to gay couples.

That is exactly the problem. We are not denying Christians a right to hold what ever beliefs they choose. But in this country, no group or religion has the right to impose their beliefs on the rest of society. Holding religious beliefs is one thing. Trying to impose beliefs and legislating based on those beliefs is something else entirely, and it must be opposed vigorously at every possible opportunity.

My words don't demonize the Christian Right. Their own actions do that to themselves.



It's been swell, but the swelling has gone down.
User currently offlineKykevin54 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 80 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (9 years 1 month 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1060 times:

Quoting PA110 (Reply 7):
But in this country, no group or religion has the right to impose their beliefs on the rest of society.

No, but voters sure do, and if you think that religious values can be kept out of the voting both, then you're dreaming. Majority rules, I'm afraid. Sometimes, the majority chooses poorly. But if we're not okay with the awful injustices that occur because of it, then we better move to North Korea. I hear that it's much better there.


User currently offlinePdpsol From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 1115 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (9 years 1 month 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1024 times:

Kykevin54,

Your posts reflect a conflicted thought process. You claim to support 'Gay Unions' [I am assuming you are referring to civil marriage here], yet you acquiese to limiting civil rights for same-sex couples simply because 'majority rules'.

What matters here is not what 'others' want [and, frankly, I do not believe the majority of our population would agree with limiting the civil rights of their fellow gay and lesbian citizens], but what YOU believe is ethical, moral and fair. Comparing same-sex civil marriage to wanting a 'private jet and a Rolls-Royce' is utterly ridiculous.

I have absolutely no doubt the struggle for GLBT rights in our society is THE civil rights issue of our lifetime. Slowly, but surely, the rest of the world is waking up to the same realization.


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21565 posts, RR: 55
Reply 10, posted (9 years 1 month 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1022 times:

Quoting Kykevin54 (Reply 6):
The gay community sees it as morally wrong to deny rights to gay couples. That is absolutely fine. They are entitled to that belief. The Christian right sees it as morally wrong to give rights to gay couples. There's the conflict.

From what I understand, in the US, the trend is towards giving rights rather than denying them. In other words, people have rights above and beyond what's stated in the Constitution unless there is sound legal reason for them not to have that right. That's the main difference - the Christian view runs against that philosophy, the gay view does not.

Quoting Kykevin54 (Reply 8):
Quoting PA110 (Reply 7):
But in this country, no group or religion has the right to impose their beliefs on the rest of society.

No, but voters sure do,

Nope, not even them. That's what "protection of the minority from the majority" means. Of course, the voters pick who is in power, but those in power still have a responsibility to protect the rights of ALL citizens.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineTWFirst From Vatican City, joined Apr 2000, 6346 posts, RR: 52
Reply 11, posted (9 years 1 month 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1020 times:

Quoting Kykevin54 (Reply 8):
No, but voters sure do, and if you think that religious values can be kept out of the voting both, then you're dreaming. Majority rules, I'm afraid. Sometimes, the majority chooses poorly. But if we're not okay with the awful injustices that occur because of it, then we better move to North Korea. I hear that it's much better there

WRONG, WRONG, and REALLY INCORRECT.

You need one of Gigneil's lessons in how a REPUBLIC, i.e. our government, works. We are not a pure democracy. As a very simple example, if "majority rules" were really the case, then Al Gore would have been elected president in 2000, yes? He won 500,000 more votes.

On the contrary, our system of government was set up to protect the rights of minorities. If "majority rules" were really the case, racial segregation would still be allowed.

Fundamental Christians DO NOT have a "right" to oppress gays and lesbians... even if it is "what they believe is right"... and that is what their actions are...oppression, and that is why gays are upset and refer to them as bigots... because their intentions are to limit rights to a group of citizens based solely on the nature of those people. Gays, on the other hand, have never sought to limit Christians from practicing their religion.



An unexamined life isn't worth living.
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (9 years 1 month 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1006 times:

Quoting Kykevin54 (Reply 8):
Majority rules, I'm afraid.

...that's why we have what's called a Constitution, genius--- so ensure that the majority does NOT automatically rule.

Quoting TWFirst (Reply 11):
You need one of Gigneil's lessons in how a REPUBLIC, i.e. our government, works.

Holistically agree, smack 'im down Giggy.


User currently offlineJaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (9 years 1 month 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 996 times:

Quoting Kykevin54 (Reply 4):
Why is it that every time the "Christian Right" tries to push for what they honestly believe is right, they have to be labeled as biggots and facists? They want what they think is best just the same as the Gays want what they think is best.

But what we think is right, only affects us. What the Christian right believes is right does not only affect them. Their beliefs seek to legally marginalize a group of people who are different from them.

Don't equate our struggle for our own rights, versus their attempts to deny us any.

What the Christian right wants to do is shove their moral principles upon everyone else, irrespective of whether we as Americans believe in them or not. As a gay American, I'm not asking the Christian right to change their beliefs. They can believe that I'm going to hell and hold all their other principles dear.

You don't like me as a gay person? Don't invite me over.

But don't attempt to strip me of my relationships, my job, my home, my privacy through legislative means - which is what they strive to do


User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 14, posted (9 years 1 month 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 997 times:

You rang?

Quoting Kykevin54 (Reply 8):
No, but voters sure do

No. NO. They absolutely do not. In a functioning democracy, the majority NEVER is given the right to strip a freedom from someone.

If you and I have to agree on it, it isn't freedom, is it?

Please. Do some research. Read the constitution. I suggest you read some Thomas Jefferson.

Quoting Kykevin54 (Reply 8):
Majority rules, I'm afraid

Again, no it doesn't. Majority sucks. You can't have a free society with majority rules.

This isn't a democracy. This is a republic. There are safeguards in place to prevent someone like you from stripping me of my freedoms. You want a democracy, go back to ancient Greece and do nothing but vote on every little thing that happens.

Quoting Kykevin54 (Reply 8):
Sometimes, the majority chooses poorly.

Yes. And fortunately, when that happens, we have checks and balances to prevent it.

Quoting Kykevin54 (Reply 8):
Sometimes, the majority chooses poorly. But if we're not okay with the awful injustices that occur because of it, then we better move to North Korea.

Why not just be patient, we'll take them over under the auspices of "freedom" and "democracy".

Its pathetic that we're the "beacon" of freedom in the world, yet we're actively campaigning at home to strip American citizens of freedoms and legislating what people should believe.

Pathetic.

N


User currently offline777DadandJr From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1516 posts, RR: 12
Reply 15, posted (9 years 1 month 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 988 times:

Quoting PA110 (Thread starter):
Don't get divorced. Stop making the gay community a scapegoat for the decline in so-called (straight) family values

Very well stated. Simple and to the point!

Quoting PA110 (Reply 2):
the Gay Community would fight back with more than just rhetoric

Agreed, as well.

Quoting PA110 (Reply 2):
Damn, where is ActUp when you need them

Here in lies one of your problems. Unfortunately, despite the amount of air time they get in the media, I don't think Act Up represents the majority of the gay community. Furthermore, unfortunately, the general populace sees Act Up as representative of the gay community. This is not a good thing. I do believe that the message that Act Up tried to spread is a good one, but their tactics are a total turn off to the community at large.
Having sex on the steps of St Patrick's Cathedral during Gay Pride Parade to make a point, really doesn't. It makes them look like the stereotype that they are so desperately trying to shake. A straight couple doing the same thing wouldn't be tolerated, so why should Act Up think any different, just because they are gay?

I applaude Bill Lockyear's actions to help cut the knees off this nutjob Thomasson.
The unfortunate thing about people like him, and others (Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, et al) is that it works in the same way as Act Up in shapeing peoples perceptions. Just as people look at Act Up as representative of the gay community, others also see these sanctimonious pin heads as representative of Christians.

Nobody wins here.

Russ



My glass is neither 1/2 empty nor 1/2 full, rather, the glass itself is twice as big as it should be.
User currently offlineDtwclipper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (9 years 1 month 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 977 times:

Quoting PA110 (Thread starter):
he actually proposes to strip California of all domestic partner protections.

I would watch carefully the outcome of the lawsuits in Michigan that have arisen since last November since the passage of Prop 2.

As it defines marriage as a union of a Man and Woman, and no other union is recognized, the question of "partner" benefits have been raised (I paraphrase).

The state, state universities and UAW contracts, etc., are up to interpretation, and it is being funneled through the court system now.

I think that Prop 2 will be found unconstitutional (IMO), because it not only "outlaws" gay marriage, but it also disenfranchises domestic partners of opposite sexes.


User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (9 years 1 month 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 971 times:

Quoting Dtwclipper (Reply 16):
I would watch carefully the outcome of the lawsuits in Michigan that have arisen since last November since the passage of Prop 2.

Don't know if there's a lawsuit, but Issue 1 last year in Ohio-the one that got all the religious loonies out to bash gays and vote for Bush-has had chilling effects on domestic partner issues. Several women have tried to bring suit against a live-in partner for assult, but, as predicted, many judges aren't allowing the cases in court because of Issue 1, and the feeling it affects even straight domestic partner cases.

I think eventually Issue 1 in Ohio-which was just a redundancy, in may regards to an earlier initiative passed by The Taliban...err, the Ohio Legislature, banning gay unions, will be seen as unconstitutional.


User currently offline767Lover From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (9 years 1 month 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 962 times:

I have no problem with homosexual domestic partners getting benefits, but heterosexual domestic partners should be eligible for benefits as well.

Why should I have to marry my boyfriend in an official capacity to meld my life with his? Yes, we have the LEGAL ability to "marry" but what if we don't want to? Or what if my partner's former spouse won't sign divorce papers (that's not the case with me-- he's never been married-- but I have seen this as an issue with a few couples)

We are committed to one another as much as any of my gay friends who are coupled off are.


User currently offlineDesertJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7776 posts, RR: 16
Reply 19, posted (9 years 1 month 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 953 times:

Quoting 767Lover (Reply 18):
I have no problem with homosexual domestic partners getting benefits, but heterosexual domestic partners should be eligible for benefits as well.

The irony of the Christian right crusade against domestic partner rights/benefits for homosexual couples is that it impacts a large number of unmarried heterosexual couples. An interesting bit of information that rarely sees much press coverage or discussion.



Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia
User currently offlineDtwclipper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (9 years 1 month 5 days ago) and read 951 times:

Quoting 767Lover (Reply 18):
I have no problem with homosexual domestic partners getting benefits, but heterosexual domestic partners should be eligible for benefits as well.

Not in Michigan my friend. The law here, again open to interpretation, does not recognize opposite sex domestic partnerships.

"Proposal 2 is a state constitutional amendment that defines marriage between one man and one woman as the only agreement recognized as a marriage, in effect banning same-sex marriage.
.

Bidwell and opponents say the last six words of the ballot proposal - "or similar union for any purpose" - will affect opposite-sex domestic unions, as well, and businesses' abilities to attract workers."

I guess the Religious Right feels good about this too. Their concept of marriage is the only way!

www.theoaklandpress.com/ stories/102604/loc_20041026009.shtml


User currently offlineLuv2fly From United States of America, joined May 2003, 12099 posts, RR: 49
Reply 21, posted (9 years 1 month 5 days ago) and read 947 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Jaysit (Reply 13):
What the Christian right wants to do is shove their moral principles upon everyone else, irrespective of whether we as Americans believe in them or not. As a gay American, I'm not asking the Christian right to change their beliefs. They can believe that I'm going to hell and hold all their other principles dear.



Quoting Jaysit (Reply 13):
You don't like me as a gay person? Don't invite me over.

But don't attempt to strip me of my relationships, my job, my home, my privacy through legislative means - which is what they strive to do

I agree 110%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



You can cut the irony with a knife
User currently offlineKykevin54 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 80 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (9 years 1 month 5 days ago) and read 926 times:

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 14):
Yes. And fortunately, when that happens, we have checks and balances to prevent it.

Not always. The minority of people in the nation think that a Republican president and congress are poor choices. However, there are no checks and balances to take them out unless they actually break the law. The majority, in this case, makes the final decision regardless of what any minority group may think. That same voting block can change constitutions to make sure that anti-gay union laws are not illegal. It has already happened in a few states with more to come most likely.

This is going to be my last post in this thread, but I would really feel for somebody in here that actually supported the gay union ban. I've been bashed around enough for just attempting to bring some civility back to the argument. Good luck guys.


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (9 years 1 month 5 days ago) and read 920 times:

Quoting Kykevin54 (Reply 22):
I've been bashed around enough for just attempting to bring some civility back to the argument.

...no, you've been bashed for your inability to distinguish a constitutional republic from a pure democracy.


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26444 posts, RR: 75
Reply 24, posted (9 years 1 month 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 876 times:

Quoting PA110 (Reply 2):
Damn, where is ActUp when you need them?

Perhaps off telling people HIV is harmless again.

Quoting Kykevin54 (Reply 6):
Somebody will win and somebody will lose. It's part of life. If the right wing wins on this issue, the gay community will lose, and vice versa. Everyday, people from all different walks of life deal with unjust things. If the right wingers win, there will be some unjust things that occur. However, justice, like right and wrong, are in the eye of the beholder. If the gay community wins, the right wing will feel that a great injustice has been handed to them.

This is not about winning and losing. It is about equal protection

Quoting Kykevin54 (Reply 8):
Majority rules, I'm afraid.

Like Fred, Neil and others have said, no it doesn't. Democracy is a great concept, but the inherent tyrany of the majority brings in the concept of Constitutionalism. Constitutions are there to protect the rights of minorities. Our Constitution does a very good job of that. Certain politicians and judges don't do a good enough job of upholding that idea.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
California Bridges Under Terrorist Threat posted Fri Nov 2 2001 17:01:20 by Jiml1126
Terror Threat In Livingston, Scotland? posted Fri Dec 8 2006 22:01:57 by Pawsleykat
"6 Feet Under". Why Did They Stop It? posted Fri Dec 8 2006 12:51:47 by Kay
File This Under "One Sick Dude" posted Thu Dec 7 2006 02:56:41 by Dtwclipper
Fijis Under A Coup Again, Military Forces Takeover posted Tue Dec 5 2006 07:42:36 by 777ER
Travelling Under An Assumed Title posted Mon Nov 13 2006 10:04:23 by JGPH1A
Domestic Travel In China posted Mon Nov 6 2006 18:41:38 by Flpuck6
Predictions For California Vote Outcome posted Tue Oct 31 2006 02:57:34 by Matt D
Three Firefighters Die In California Wildfire posted Thu Oct 26 2006 21:53:20 by AsstChiefMark
France Under Ségolène Royal..? posted Mon Oct 23 2006 19:48:28 by Beaucaire